the republic of trinidad and tobago in the high...

of 28

The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

Claim No: CV2008-04593

BETWEEN

IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT NO. 60 OF 2000

AND

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY THE FISHERMEN AND FRIENDS OF THE

SEA FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW IN ACCORDANCE WITH CPOR

1998 PART 56.3

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ACT CHAPTER 35:05

AND THE REGULATIONS MADE THEREUNDER

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE DECISION OF THE MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR THE

ENVIRONMENT TO PUBLICH AND/OR ISSUE THE WATER POLLUTION FEES

(AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2006

BETWEEN

FISHERMEN AND FRIENDS OF THE SEA

Claimant

AND

THE MINISTER OF PLANNING, HOUSING AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Defendant

APPEARANCES:

Claimant Marina Narinesingh

Defendant Martin Daly S.C. leading Antoinette Alleyne and instructed by Amrita

Ramsook

DATE OF DELIVERY: 18th October 2012

Before The Honourable Mr. Justice Devindra Rampersad

of 28

JUDGMENT

Contents Introduction: ............................................................................................................................................ 3

The application made: ............................................................................................................................. 4

Concessions made at the hearing: ........................................................................................................... 5

The decision: ............................................................................................................................................ 6

The fee structure: ................................................................................................................................ 6

The 2001 Rules and Regulations by The Honourable Minister Nanan: ........................................... 6

The 2006 Amendment to the Rules and Regulations by the Honourable Minister Beckles: .......... 8

The Complaint: ..................................................................................................................................... 8

The defendant’s rationale:................................................................................................................... 9

The Judicial Review test: ........................................................................................................................ 10

Discussion of the models used: ............................................................................................................. 11

What is this legislation intended to achieve? .................................................................................... 11

Introduction: .................................................................................................................................. 11

The legislative framework:............................................................................................................. 17

The Polluter Pays Principle: ............................................................................................................... 20

Are the models used legitimate models? .......................................................................................... 20

The applicability of the models: ..................................................................................................... 22

The Court’s findings: .......................................................................................................................... 24

The Order: .............................................................................................................................................. 27

of 28

“The struggle to save the global environment is in one way much more difficult than the struggle to

vanquish Hitler, for this time the war is with ourselves. We are the enemy, just as we have only

ourselves as allies.”

~ Al Gore-

Introduction:

1. Section 26 of the Environmental Management Act (“the Act”) allows the defendant to make

rules for the procedures for the registration of polluters who may be allowed to release

pollutants into the environment along with the quantity, condition or concentration of

pollutants or substances containing pollutants that may be released into the environment and

for the procedures and standards with respect to permits or licences required for polluters to

install or operate any process or other source from which pollutants will be or may continue to

be released into the environment.

2. In other words, the Act allows the defendant to grant permits for the pollution of the

environment under terms and conditions authorized by the issuance of a permit.

3. In 2001, regulations were introduced by the defendant under the powers and in the manner set

out later in this judgment which fixed a standard fee for the obtaining of a permit by a polluter

for the “legitimate” pollution of the water supply. In 2005, the Authority carried out a study

and made certain recommendations. In 2006, the 2001 regulations were amended to include

minor adjustments in two areas but without adjusting the standardized permit fee.

4. The claimant is a public interest group which has brought this claim to challenge the

defendant’s decision to institute the standardized permit fee under the provisions of the Act

and basically says that that fee structure which exists at present is contrary to an

internationally accepted environmental principle known as the polluter pays principle (“the

PPP”).

5. The current permit arrangement charges one fixed fee for permits without regard to the

differentiating aspects of a polluter’s business and levels of pollution. The question arises as to

whether this is a proper application of the PPP?

6. It is important to note that this is not an application being made by a polluter for a declaration

that the permit system is inequitable. Rather, this is an application being made by the claimant

that the current standardized permit fee is contrary to the PPP. Therefore, this court does not

of 28

deem it necessary to consider the inequities involved, if any, in paying a standardized permit

fee regardless of the level of pollution the permit holder expects to generate except in so far as

it relates to the court’s exercise of its discretion under well-established judicial review

principles.

The application made:

7. This claim was filed on 31 December 2008 for the following reliefs:

7.1. A declaration that the defendant improperly delegated its legislative powers to the

Authority in prescribing the permit fees and in particular the annual permit fees under

the Water Pollution (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations, 2006.

7.2. A declaration that the methodology of employing a flat fee or fixed fee structure

and/or system which said methodology was used by the defendent for the calculation

of annual permit fees under the Water Pollution (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations,

2006 is illegal and/or ultra vires and/or contrary to the NEP1 and/or the Act and /or the

policy of the Ministry responsible for the environment and/or the policy of the

Authority and/or customary international law and treaties to which Trinidad and

Tobago is a signatory.

7.3. An Order of certiorari to bring into the High Court of Justice and quash the decision

of the defendant to use and employ a fixed or flat fee methodology, which said

methodology was used by the Defendant to determine the annual permit fees under the

Water Pollution (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations, 2006.

7.4. An order of mandamus compelling the defendant to use, consider and apply the

polluter pays principle in calculating and/or determining and/or fixing the annual

permit fee under the Water Pollution (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations, 2006.

7.5. A declaration that the Water Pollution (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations, 2006 not be

implemented and/or enforced by the Authority unless the defendant have adequately

and properly considered and applied the polluter pays prinicple in calculating and/or

determining and/or fixing the annual permit fees under the Water Pollution (Fees)

(Amendment) Regulations, 2006.

1 NEP – The National Environmental Policy

of 28

7.6. A declaration that the Water Pollution (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations, 2006 is

illegal and/or ultra vires and/or contrary to the NEP and/or the Act and/or the policy of

the defendant and/or the policy of the Authority and/or customary international law

and treaties to which Trinidad and Tobago is a signatory.

7.7. Costs.

7.8. Such further and/or other relief as the Honourable Court may deem just and necessary.

8. In response, the defendant made it clear that the reasons for the use of the Water Pollution

Regulations were clear and that there was a satisfactory explanation for the decision to use

Model 2 - the Egalitarian approach model of the Water Pollution Management Programme

(WPMP) which is described later on. It was submitted that the decision to use such was not

irrational and was in conformity with the PPP.

9. The defendant has also argued that the court should be concerned with the delay in bringing

the proceedings to challenge the decision of the Minister in applying the methodology for

water permits. The defendant submitted that where there is a lengthy delay the court should

infer that the granting of any relief would be detrimental to good administratuon and prejudice

the rights of some persons. The defendant argues that the fact that the policy was formulated

and published in 2001and implemented in 2007 yet the proceeding were only commenced in

November 2008 with no explanation for the seven year delay meant that the claimant should

be denied relief.

Concessions made at the hearing:

10. At the hearing, the claimant’s attorney indicated to the court that she would not be pursuing

the second relief claimed i.e. the declaration that the defendant had improperly delegated his

legislative powers to the EMA.

11. At the same hearing, the defendant’s attorney at law indicated that the defendant would not be

pursuing the issue of delay.

of 28

The decision:

12. The impugned decision centers around the methodology of employing a flat fee or fixed fee

structure for the calculation of annual permit fees under the Water Pollution (Fees)

Regulations, 2001, the Water Pollution (Amendment) Rules, 2006 and the Water Pollution

(Fees) (Amendment) Regulations, 2006.

The fee structure:

The 2001 Rules and Regulations by The Honourable Minister Nanan:

13. In 2001, the Water Pollution Rules 2001 [Legal Notice No 230] was laid in Parliament by the

then Minister of the Environment the Honourable Adesh Nanan, its overall objective being to

improve and preserve water quality in Trinidad and Tobago. In 2001, the Water Pollution

(Fees) Regulations, 2001 [Legal Notice No.142], was also laid in Parliament by the said

Minister of the Environment. These Notices were made pursuant to section 96(2) of the Act

whereby a Minister is vested with the power to make these types of regulations.

14. The Water Pollution Rules 2001, provides for the payment of an annual permit where a

polluter intends to release a water pollutant outside of the permissible level into the water

supply and the environment. These polluters are required to obtain a permit and pay a

prescribed fee (Rule 8). The schedule to the Water Pollution (Fees) Regulations, 2001 sets out

the fees payable for the application related to certificates and permits as required by the Water

Pollution Rules 2001. The implication of the payment of such a fee is therefore that a polluter

is allowed to discharge a pollutant into the environment once the fee is paid and the prescribed

terms and conditions met. It has been stated that the permit fees are intended to cover the costs

of administering the management of water pollution and include the PPP.2

2 See paragraph 11 of the affidavit of Glenn Goddard filed on September 30

th 2009

of 28

15. The permit fees under the 2001 Regulations are as follows:

SCHEDULE

FIRST COLUMN SECOND COLUMN

Rule 6

Application for Registration Certificate $1,000.00

Rule 7(4)

Application for Renewal od Registration Certificate $500.00

Rule 8(2)

Annual Permit Fees $10,000.00 per annum or part

thereof

Rule 10 (1)(b)

Application for a permit $2,500.00

Rule 16(2)

Application for changes asfter grant of registration certificat or permit $500.00

Rule 17(4)

Appplication for Variation of Permit $4,000.00

Rule 18(1)

Application for Transfer of Permit $500.00

Rule 19(1)

Application for Renewal of Permit $3,500.00

Rule 19(4)

Annual Permit Fees for Renewed Permit $7,000.00 per annum or part

thereof

Rule 25(3)

Application for extract from Registrar of Water Pollutants $0.50 per page

Rule 26(1)

Application that Information supplied be omitted from the $250.00

Water Polluters Register

of 28

The 2006 Amendment to the Rules and Regulations by the Honourable Minister Beckles:

16. In 2006, the Water Pollution (Amendment) Rules 2006 [Legal Notice No. 325] was laid in

Parliamant by the Honourable Penelope Beckles, the then Minister of Public Utilities and the

Environment and on December 18 2006, the Water Pollution (Fees) (Amendendment)

Regulations 2006 [Legal Notice No. 330] was also laid in Parliament by the said Minister.

Under the amended fees the application for changes after grant of registration certificate was

increased from $500.00 to $1000.00, the application for variation of permit was increased

from $4,000.00 to $10,000.00 per annum but not exceeding $150,000.00, the application for

renewal of permit was increased from $3,500.00 to $5000.00 and the annual permit fees for

renewed permits was increased from $7,000.00 to $15,000.00. There was no change to the

actual annual permit fee of $10,000.00.

17. It is important to note that the WPMP was dated the 6th February 2005

3 - more than 3 ½ years

after the Water Pollution (Fees) Regulations, 2001 which identified the permit fee structure

and which structure was not altered by the two 2006 amendments in relation to the issue at

hand. The fee prescribed in 2001 before the WPMP remained the same.

The Complaint:

18. The claimant advanced seven ground of challenge. The claimant advanced that the defendant

in issuing the Water Pollution (Fees)(Amendment) Regulations, 2006:

18.1. Acted contrary to the NEP by failing to consider and/or apply the polluter pays

principle in establishing the permit fee structure. The claimant alleged that this was

ultra vires the NEP and perverse and without regard to a material consideration

namely that the requirements of section 2.3 of the NEP had not been met.

18.2. Acted contrary to the Act by failing to consider and/or apply the polluter pays

principle in establishing the permit fee structure and was therefore ultra vires the Act

and perverse.

18.3. Acted contrary to the policy of the Ministry responsible for the Environment by

failing to consider and/or apply the PPP in establishing the permit fee structure and

was a breach of the legitimate expectation of the claimant that the defendant would

promote and implement the policy of the Ministry responsible for the Environment

3 See paragraph 33 of the affidavit of Gary Aboud filed on 31 December 2008 admitted in paragraph 7 of the

affidavit of Glen Goddard filed on 30 September 2009

of 28

that the PPP should form part of and be applied in the development of pollution

control policy such as the Water Pollution (Fees) (Ammendment) Regulations, 2006.

18.4. Acted contrary to the policy of the Authority. The claimant alleged that the Water

Pollution Rules 2001 and its subsidiary rules and regulations including the Water

Pollution (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2006 are supposed to give legislative

effect to the WPMP as developed by the Authority and should consider and apply the

policies and recommendations of the Authority. The failure of the defendant to

consider and/or apply the PPP in establishing the permit fee structure was therefore a

breach of the legitimate expectation of the claimant that the defendant would promote

and implement the policy of the Authority that the PPP should form part of and be

applied in the development of pollution control policy such as the Water Pollution

(Fees) (Amendment) Regulation, 2006.

18.5. Acted contrary to customary international law and treaties to which Trinidad and

Tobago is a signatory. The claimant alleged that the failure of the defenant to consider

and/or apply the PPP in establishing the permit fee structure was a breach of the

legitimate expectation of the claimant that the defenant would promote and implement

the principles of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development such

that the PPP should form part of and be applied in the development of pollution

control policy such as the Water Pollution (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations, 2006 and

principles of sustainable development as established in customary international law.

18.6. Failed to take into consideration material facts being the PPP.

The defendant’s rationale:

19. The defendant responded through the affidavits of Dr. Reeza Mohammed and Mr. Glenn

Goddard.

20. Dr. Mohammed was the Minister of the Environment from 1999 to 2000 and held himself out

as being responsible for the legislative frameworks relative to the Environment and by

extension the Act and subsidiary legislation. His position was that the most appropriate model

for Water Pollution Regulation (WPR) would be the model that was user-friendly and the

simplest to administer and he therefore gave directions on this basis.

21. Mr. Glenn Goddard deposed that he was involved in the WPMP and that the programme was

the joint work of Wayne Rajkumar and himself. He noted that the WPR was one of the

mechanisms by which objectives of the programme was to be achieved. He noted that the fees

of 28

payable to the Authority by virtue of the Water Pollution (Fees) Regulations 2001 was

intended to make the programme self sufficient and sustainable and to recover the cost of

operating the programme from those who discharge pollutants in to the country’s water

resources. He deposed that the permit fees method of implementing the PPP was well

recognized and that he made recommendations to the then CEO of the Authority, Dr. Dave

Mc. Intosh, concerning what model might be used in Trinidad and Tobago. He stated that

Dr. Dave Mc. Intosh, who communicated his recommendations to Dr. Reeza Mohommed,

instructed him that the model that was the simplest to administer should be the model used for

the WPR.

22. Mr. Goddard noted that Model 2- the “Egalitarian Approach”, as described at page 32 of the

WPMP - was a model easy to administer and which was reasonable for the state of

institutional development of Trinidad and Tobago. It also incorporated the basic tenet of the

PPP. This was therefore the model chosen to be used.

The Judicial Review test:

23. The claimant wants to court to find that the Water Pollution (Fees) Amendment Regulations

were ultra vires the NEP and the Act.

24. The defendant in their submissions of March 01 2010 set out the applicable test for the

determination of when subsidiary legislation could be regarded as ultra vires. The defendant

relied upon the case of R v Secretary of State for Social Security ex part Joint Council for

the Welfare of Imigrants; R v Secretary of State for Social Security ex parte B (1996) 4 All

ER 385 which stated that:

“The principle is undisputed. Subsidiary legislation must not only be within the vires of the enabling

statute but must also be so drawn as not to conflict with statutory rights already enacted by other primary

legislation.”

25. The defendant submits that the defendant has claimed that the WPR has satisfied this test as

the Water Pollution (Fees) Amendment Regulations 2006 are wholly consistent with the

purpose and objectives of the Act.

of 28

26. It is trite law that the principle that arose out of the landmark case of Associated Provincial

Picture Houses Ltd v. Wednesbury Corporation (1947) 111 JP 216 dictates how courts will

intervene to correct administrative decisions on grounds of unreasonableness. Lord Greene

MR in that case concluded that:

“The court is entitled to investigate the action of the local authority with a view to seeing whether it has

taken into account matters which it ought not to take into account, or, conversely, has refused to take into

account or neglected to take into account matters which it ought to take into account.”

27. In CCSU v Minister for the Civil Service [1984] 3 All ER 935 cited by the claimant, Lord

Diplock acknowledged that administrative decisions are subject to review where they are

unreasonable, which he defined as follows:

“It applies to a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that

no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it.”

28. Lord Keith of Kinkel in Tesco Stores Limited v Secretary of State for the Environment

[1995] 1 WLR 759 said:

“It is entirely for the decision maker to attribute to the relevant considerations such weight as he thinks

fit, and the courts will not interfere unless he acts unreasonably in the Wednesbury sense.”

29. In the case of Jeffrey Holder v Margaret Farray (Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of

Sport and Youth Affairs) Claim High Court Action No. CV2008-03829 [Unreported],

Kokaram J quite correctly, to my mind, stated:

“In reviewing a decision on the ground of unreasonableness the Court must be astute to confine its

jurisdiction to a supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction and to determine whether the decision maker

acted within the bounds of his discretion and not as Lord Mance described in Lackston Robinson v Coke

and ors PC 49 of 2007 as “outside the range of the reasonable.”

Discussion of the models used:

What is this legislation intended to achieve?

Introduction:

“Thousands have lived without love, not one without water.”

W. H. Auden

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/w/w_h_auden.html

of 28

30. Water is arguably Earth’s most precious resource. It is non-renewable and it has been

suggested that less than 1% of the world’s water can be used as drinking water4.

31. One definition and discussion of water pollution is given as follows:5

“Water pollution:

A change in the chemical, physical, biological, and radiological quality of water that is injurious to its existing,

intended, or potential uses (for example, boating, waterskiing, swimming, the consumption of fish, and the health of

aquatic organisms and ecosystems).

The term “water pollution” generally refers to human-induced (anthropogenic) changes to water quality. Thus, the

discharge of toxic chemicals from a pipe or the release of livestock waste into a nearby water body is considered

pollution. Conversely, nutrients that originate from animals in the wild or toxins that originate from natural

processes are not considered pollution.

The contamination of ground water, rivers, lakes, wetlands, estuaries, and oceans can threaten the health of humans

and aquatic life. Sources of water pollution are generally divided into two categories. The first is point-source

pollution, in which contaminants are discharged from a discrete location. Sewage outfalls and oil spills are examples

of point-source pollution. The second category is non-point-source or diffuse pollution, referring to all of the other

discharges that deliver contaminants to water bodies. Acid rain and unconfined runoff from agricultural or urban

areas are examples of non-point-source pollution. The principal contaminants of water include toxic chemicals,

nutrients and biodegradable organics, and bacterial and viral pathogens.

Water pollution can threaten human health when pollutants enter the body via skin exposure or through the direct

consumption of contaminated food or drinking water. Priority pollutants, including dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane

(DDT) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), persist in the natural environment and bioaccumulate in the tissues

of aquatic organisms. These persistent organic pollutants are transferred up the food chain (in a process called

biomagnification), and they can reach levels of concern in fish species that are eaten by humans. Finally, bacteria

and viral pathogens can pose a public health risk for those who drink contaminated water or eat raw shellfish from

polluted water bodies.

4 See http://www.lenntech.com/water-trivia-facts.htm

5 See http://www.ecomii.com/science/encyclopedia/water-pollution

From McGraw-Hill Concise Encyclopedia of Environmental Science. The Content is a copyrighted work of McGraw-Hill and McGraw-Hill reserves all rights in and to the Content. The Work is © 2008 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

http://www.ecomii.com/science/encyclopedia/water-pollution

of 28

Contaminants have a significant impact on aquatic ecosystems. for example, enrichment of water bodies with

nutrients (principally nitrogen and phosphorus) can result in the growth of algae and other aquatic plants that shade

or clog streams. If wastewater containing biodegradable organic matter is discharged into a stream with inadequate

dissolved oxygen, the water downstream of the point of discharge will become anaerobic and will be turbid and dark.

Settleable solids, if present, will be deposited on the streambed, and anaerobic decomposition will occur. Over the

reach of stream where the dissolved-oxygen concentration is zero, a zone of putrefaction will occur with the

production of hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and other odorous gases. Because many fish species require a minimum of

4–5 mg of dissolved oxygen per liter of water, they will be unable to survive in this portion of the stream.

Direct exposures to toxic chemicals is also a health concern for individual aquatic plants and animals. Chemicals

(e.g., pesticides) are frequently transported to lakes and rivers via runoff, and they can have unintended and harmful

effects on aquatic life. Toxic chemicals have been shown to reduce the growth, survival, reproductive output, and

disease resistance of exposed organisms. These effects can have important consequences for the viability of aquatic

populations and communities.”

32. This court has no doubt that this definition includes matters and concepts which are generally

accepted and are therefore undisputed.

33. According to a United Nations report6, in developing countries:

33.1. 70% of industrial wastes are dumped untreated into waters where they pollute the

usable water supply;

33.2. Every day, 2 million tons of sewage and other effluents drain into the world’s waters

34. The Executive Summary to the paper entitled “Clearing the Waters: A Focus on Water

Quality Solutions”7 put together by the UNEP

8 and delivered in Nairobi in March 2010

described the situation as follows:

“Every day, millions of tons of inadequately treated sewage and industrial and agricultural wastes are

poured into the world’s waters. Every year, lakes, rivers, and deltas take in the equivalent of the weight of

the entire human population– nearly seven billion people – in the form of pollution. Every year, more

people die from the consequences of unsafe water than from all forms of violence, including war. And,

every year, water contamination of natural ecosystems affects humans directly by destroying fisheries or

causing other impacts on biodiversity that affect food production. In the end, most polluted freshwater ends

up in the oceans, causing serious damage to many coastal areas and fisheries and worsening our ocean and

coastal resource management challenges.

6 http://www.unwater.org/downloads/WWD2012_water_quality.pdf

7 See http://www.unep.org/PDF/Clearing_the_Waters.pdf

8 United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP]

of 28

Clean, safe, and adequate freshwater is vital to the survival of all living organisms and the smooth

functioning of ecosystems, communities, and economies. But the quality of the world’s water is increasingly

threatened as human populations grow, industrial and agricultural activities expand, and as climate

change threatens to cause major alterations of the hydrologic cycle. Poor water quality threatens the health

of people and ecosystems, reduces the availability of safe water for drinking and other uses, and limits

economic productivity and development opportunities. There is an urgent need for the global community –

both the public and private sector – to join together to take on the challenge of protecting and improving

the quality of water in our rivers, lakes, aquifers, and taps. To do so we must commit to preventing future

water pollution, treating waters that are already contaminated, and restoring the quality and health of

rivers, lakes, aquifers, wetlands, and estuaries; this enables these waters to meet the broadest possible

range of human and ecosystem needs. These actions will be felt all the way from the headwaters of our

watersheds to the oceans, fisheries, and marine environments that help sustain humanity.”

35. Achim Steiner, UNEP Executive Director and Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations

said at the 18th Forum of Ministers of Environment of Latin America and the Caribbean in his

speech entitled “Rio+20-A Paradigm Shift Towards a Sustainable Century”, which was

delivered at Quito on 2 February, 2012:

“There are some countries who consider that there is an excessive emphasis on 'monetizing' nature and

that its services are being priced rather like consumer goods. Others are concerned considering that market

mechanisms will produce unhealthy results and concentrate natural wealth in the hands of the few. Still

others have expressed their preference for the term "Ecological Economy" as it denotes an even stronger

reliance and more direct connection to the natural world.

I can assure you that UNEP shares these concerns and we understand that nature's worth should be

recognized in terms of its spiritual and cultural dimensions, as well as its social benefits. We all stand

behind the objective of development in harmony with Nature, because we recognize that it is the very

foundation of all life - and protecting nature is at the very core of UNEP's mission.

But, its economic value should also be recognized in order to enhance the likelihood of its survival in a

world of competing interests where all too often current ideas of returns on investment in the short term, tip

the balance in favour of unsustainable rather than sustainable development.

It is clear, that nature and its services are the wealth of the poor and that the

poor's wealth-and their role in maintaining and sustaining it- should be

recognized more formally if they are to thrive and enjoy a right to development in

a globalized world. We know from experience that it is precisely the poor and

socially excluded who suffer most from environmental degradation. We therefore

of 28

need strong institutions that are capable of addressing this situation and

correcting the market failures which produced the unsustainable outcomes we

currently experience.”

[Emphasis mine]

36. Closer to home, and in existence prior to the preparation of the WPMP although not referred

to in the list of references thereto, the “National Report On Integrating The Management

of Watersheds and Coastal Areas in Trinidad and Tobago” prepared by The Water

Resources Agency for The Ministry of the Environment in March 20019 stated in its

Executive Summary at pages (ii) and (iii):

“Pollution is a problem that is on the rise throughout the country. The main water pollutants are urban,

domestic and industrial waste, solid and toxic agricultural products and waste, sediments, petrochemicals

and oil spills form the oil and energy industries, waste from fishing vessels, ships, tourist facilities and

yachts. The pollutants affect both inland freshwater and coastal water resources, including the beaches and

shores. The most serious threats to groundwater come from nitrate and bacterial contamination arising

from agro-chemical use and sewage effluents from pit latrine soakaways and septic tanks. Another serious

concern is saltwater intrusion as a result of overabstraction in coastal aquifers ....

Like other countries, economic growth and development coupled with growth of the human population is

resulting in environmental degradation of watersheds, water resources and coastal areas. For Trinidad

and Tobago, a twin island state, the coastal habitats and ecosystems assume significant importance. The

coastal areas support a variety of life systems and valuable natural assets and within them are located key

industries and economic activities. Similar to the watersheds, these areas are subjected to threats arising

from a variety of land based activities. The country experiences much of the full range of environmental

problems, from widespread pollution of its waterways and coastal areas, chemical spills, illegal dumping,

deforestation, excessive soil erosion, fisheries and wildlife depletion. These problems are attributed to poor

land use practices and an inadequate legal and institutional framework for watershed/water resources

and coastal zone management. The watersheds and coastal areas are also under threat from natural

disasters (tropical storms, earthquakes, floods and droughts) as well as climate change and sea level rise

.......

The issues articulated above, present major challenges to the sustainability of a quality environment in the

watersheds and coastal areas of Trinidad and Tobago. A national management framework must

therefore be formulated to deal with the pressures of increasing growth (in population, urban development

9http://www.oas.org/reia/iwcam/pdf/trinidad%20and%20tobago/trinidad%20and%20tobago%20national%20r

eport.pdf

http://www.oas.org/reia/iwcam/pdf/trinidad%20and%20tobago/trinidad%20and%20tobago%20national%20report.pdf

http://www.oas.org/reia/iwcam/pdf/trinidad%20and%20tobago/trinidad%20and%20tobago%20national%20report.pdf

of 28

and industrial activity), and the accompanying pressures on the environment. Such a framework must

undoubtedly recognise the direct impacts, which emanates from their supporting systems (upstream

watersheds and the marine environment). It must also explicitly recognise the trade-offs between

development and environmental sustainability. To establish this framework the following group of actions

is recommended:

1. Implementation of the concept of integrated resource management to attain sustainable

development of the nation's watersheds and coastal areas.

2. Establishment of an effective financially autonomous institutional framework that facilitates

proper water resources, watershed and coastal zone management.

3. Protection of the environmental quality and ecosystems of watersheds and coastal areas.

4. Development of capacity and tools within a suitable institution to support the decision making

process.

37. The report continued at page 39:

“The land based water bodies in Trinidad and Tobago comprise rivers/streams, reservoirs and aquifers.

These water bodies fulfil a wide range of uses including potable water supply, irrigation, recreation,

religious rituals, waste disposal, small-scale transportation, ecosystem support and aesthetics. This heavy

multiple use of the resource is occurring without a suitable water quality management framework,

resulting in significant negative water quality impacts.

One of the most important issues contributing to watershed depletion and water pollution has been the

lack of enforcement of environmental legislation. Although there has been some historical background on

environmental legislation with at least one hundred and twenty-four (124) environmental law references

dating back from the 1950’s and 1960’s, there has been little enforcement because of:

Few environmental officers;

No qualitative standards i.e. the legislations are vague and difficult to strategically enforce; and

The spread of these historical laws among forty (40) different agencies.”

38. Without a doubt, the issue of the preservation of water as a resource is a very important

national and international issue which must be handled with care and planning after a careful

and thorough consideration of all of the factors, balancing the economic needs of the country

with the need to preserve our environment in the present and for the future. The magnitude of

the task is one which must not be undertaken lightly as the national and international agencies

of 28

seem to all reflect upon the need to ensure that the issue is handled with seriousness and

resolve so that it is addressed in the context of the grave global and national implications.

The legislative framework:

The provisions in the Act:

39. Section 26 of the Act, which places the responsibility to make the decision which is now

being challenged on the defendant, provides:

26. The Minister may, in accordance with section 27, make Rules subject to negative resolution

of Parliament, for the following:

(a) procedures for the registration of sources from which pollutants may be released into

the environment and the characterisation of such sources;

(b) The quantity, condition or concentration of pollutants or substances containing pollutants

that may be released into the environment generally or by specific sources or categories of sources;

(c) Procedures and standards with respect to permits or licences required for a person to

install or operate any process or other source from which pollutants will be or may continue

To be released into the environment;

(d) The form and manner of —

(i) applying for any licence, permit or certification that may be required or granted by

the Authority;

(ii) revoking, suspending, varying or cancelling a permit or licence or a condition in that

permit or licence;

(e) Procedures, standards and guidelines for the formal designation and protection of

“environmentally sensitive areas” or “environmentally sensitive species” under section 41;

(f) incentive programmes or mechanisms which encourage the use of effective environmental

systems and the achievement of improvements in environmental quality, as provided in section 34;

of 28

(g) designation of hazardous substances or categories of hazardous substances under section 59,

and the performance standards, procedures, safeguards and licensing or permitting requirements

in accordance with which such hazardous substances shall be handled;

(h) The procedure to be followed by any person required to apply for and receive a certificate of

environmental clearance, and the standards for preparation and submission of any environmental

impact assessment which may be required under sections 35 to 38 inclusive;

(i) The definition of various categories of waste under sections 55 to 57 inclusive, the

requirements with respect to the handling and disposal of such categories of waste, and the

licensing of facilities at which such wastes are handled or disposed;

(j) Procedures and standards for the periodic or continual monitoring of pollutant releases in

conjunction with any process, activity, vehicle or premises;

(k) The establishment of ambient environmental quality criteria and standards which may be

taken into account in setting any general, categorical or source-specific limitations under

paragraph (b) for any new or continued release of pollutants into the environment;

(l) The design, construction, operation, maintenance and monitoring of facilities or processes for

the control of pollution and the handling of wastes; and

(m) Any other matter required to be, or which may be prescribed by the Authority.

....

40. Section 27 provides:10

27. (1) in the course of developing Rules, the Minister shall—

(a) Submit draft Rules for public comment in accordance with section 28;

(b) Consider the public comments received and revise the Rules as he thinks fit;

(c) Cause the Rules to be published in the Gazette and laid thereafter in Parliament.

(2) Any Rules made by the Minister shall become effective when the Rules are published in the

Gazette or at such later time as may be specified in the Rules.

10 There has been no issue raised in respect of the s.27 procedure so that even though there is no evidence of

compliance, the court assumes that the procedure was adhered to since no complaint was made otherwise.

of 28

The National Environmental Policy:

41. The National Environmental Policy (NEP) was first adopted in 1998, but was subsequently

revised in 2005 under Section 18 (5) of the Act which allows for the revision of the policy as

the Authority sees fit. The goal of this policy is environmentally sustainable development,

meaning the balance of economic growth with environmentally sound practices in order to

enhance the quality of life and meet the needs of present and future generations.

42. Section 2.3 of the NEP provides:

“Polluter Pays Principle:

A key principle of pollution control policy is that the cost of preventing pollution or of minimising

environmental damage due to pollution will be borne by those responsible for pollution. The principle seeks

to accomplish the optimal allocation of limited resources. Important elements of the principle are:

a) Charges are levied as an application or processing fee, purchase price of a licence or

permit, which entitle the holder to generate specific quantities of pollutants; and

b) Money collected will be used to correct environmental damage.”

43. Under the rubric “Water resources” at section 3.7, the NEP goes on at the following sub-

paragraphs to state that Government will:

(h) Develop a registration programme for all facilities that are the sources of any release of water

pollutants so as to develop a water pollution inventory in Trinidad and Tobago. These facilities include

those that intend to release water pollutants and those that are already in the process of releasing water

pollutants;

(i) Control water pollution through a system of permits for facilities that are the sources of any release of

water pollutants. This control system will be based on the Polluter Pays Principle, which will set pollution

limits or performance standards for water. The cost of pollution prevention or of minimising environmental

damage due to pollution will be borne by those responsible for pollution;

(j) Ensure that in the permitting of any new point source or non-point source of water pollution, which

would lower the water quality in any area, the responsible party for such pollution shall establish and use

at least the most cost-effective and reasonable environmental management practices to address such

pollution. In addition, to the extent practicable, all new point sources of pollution shall not discharge into

near-shore or fresh surface waters;

of 28

The Polluter Pays Principle:

44. The PPP holds the polluter responsible for any damage that he may have caused to the

environment whether willfully or otherwise.

45. In 1972 a principle whereby the polluter ‘pays’ for any damage that he caused to the

environment was referenced by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and

Development (OECD). In the recommendation made by the OECD for its implementation, the

PPP was defined as“the principle to be used for allocating costs of pollution prevention and

control measures to encourage rational use of scarce environmental resources and to avoid

distortions in international trade and investment.”11

In 1974 the OECD officially

implemented the principle by the signing of the “Implementation of the Polluter-Pays

Principle”. That principle was adopted formally on 14th November, 1974.

46. There is no doubt that the PPP is not only a universally accepted and established

Environmental Principle but it has also been inducted in International Environmental Law as

evidenced by its adoption in the Rio Declaration and the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and other

international environmental treaties. Both parties in this case have agreed to its applicability so

there is no issue as to its applicability to the case at hand.

Are the models used legitimate models?

47. In light of the evidence before this court and the corresponding research in respect of the

WPMP, which reposes in the defendant’s care and control, it is startlingly obvious that there

was, and is, a remarkable dearth of information regarding the basis for the making of the

decision in question.

48. After the hearing of submissions on 9 March 2012, this court, being of the view that more

evidence of the basis for the decision was required, made an order for the defendant to file a

further affidavit to give details of the six (6) models referred to at pages 31 to 33 of the

Authority’s WPMP particularising the authors and/or the academic and/or other sources of the

said models and providing whatever research or other material is available relative to the said

models and/or each of them and verifying and/or criticizing the acceptance of the same in the

relevant field to establish whether the said models are accepted industry standards and/or are

academically accepted in the relevant field.

11

OECD Recommendation of the Council on Guiding Principles concerning International Economic Aspects of Environmental Policies, 26 May 1972, Article 4

of 28

49. That affidavit was filed on 4 April 2012 by Wayne Rajkumar who described himself as the

Assistant Manager, Water Waste and Geographic Information Systems, at the Authority.

Mr. Rajkumar went on to describe himself as the holder of a Bachelor of Science in Natural

Sciences, which he completed in 1987, and a Masters of Philosophy in chemistry, the date of

the attainment of which was not given. He says that he joined the staff of the Authority in

1997 and worked jointly with Mr. Goddard in the manner described at paragraph 7 of

Mr. Goddard's affidavit. Specifically he became involved in the preparation of the WPMP and

brought it to a conclusion under the supervision of Mr. Goddard. He is an Assistant Manager

responsible for Water Pollution at the Authority and has held that position since 2006 carrying

out this core function since he joined the Authority.

50. At paragraph 4 of his affidavit, Mr. Rajkumar said that the WPR were prepared after

Mr. Goddard made recommendations to the CEO of the Authority, Dr. Dave Mc. Intosh

concerning what model might be used in Trinidad and Tobago and after consultation with the

then Minister of the Environment, Dr. Reeza Mohammed. In relation to the models used,

which formed the basis of the defendant’s rationalisation of the fee structure, Mr. Rajkumar

said:

".... the responsibility for that aspect of the research and analysis was that of Dr. Rajendra Ramlogan.

Dr. Ramlogan worked as a Consultant with the EMA at or around the period 1998 to 2001.

Although I have no knowledge of the specific terms of reference of his consultancy, I am aware that he had

responsibility for the research and analysis of the "fee – models" component of the Management

Programme and that, subsequently, he worked on the Water Pollution Rules. As such, the content at

pages 31 to 33 of the Management Programme is based solely on the research and submissions of

Dr. Ramlogan.”

51. He went on to say at paragraph 5 of his affidavit that:

“I am not privy to the specific references which would have informed Dr. Ramlogan's research at the time.

There is no documented reference list and the Management Programme document does not specify the

references that were used. I am also not privy to the reference which is made at paragraph 17 of the

Goddard affidavit to the assessment of the comparative regimes of permit fee models in the United States.

Mr. Goddard has also left the employ of the EMA and a diligent search of the EMA's records has not

produced any account of the academic research which would have informed the conclusions drawn at pages

31 to 33 of the Management Programme."

of 28

52. Mr. Rajkumar went on to volunteer assistance to the court in terms of an independent search

of available literature and he quite candidly admitted at paragraph 6 that he was unable to find

references to the specific named models summarized at pages 31 to 33 of the Management

Programme. He qualified that response, however, by inserting the following provisos:

52.1. That, given the timeframe, his research was not very extensive and was restricted to

commonly referenced sites;

52.2. The Management Programme (i.e the WPMP) was produced over 12 years ago.

53. No application was made to extend the time for the filing of the affidavit to produce further

research on the point despite it being crucial to the issue at hand.

54. Mr. Rajkumar then went on to produce certain documents which, according to him, speaks to

the learning that would have been available at the time that the Management Programme and

the WPR would have been produced. Of course, this court is not able to say that those

documents were in fact considered in the formulation of the rules and the models by the

decision-maker.

The applicability of the models:

55. Mr. Rajkumar's candid assertion that he did not know the specific terms of reference of

Dr. Ramlogan's consultancy and the fact that those terms of reference were not provided to

this court raises serious doubts as to the applicability of the models referred to in the WPMP.

56. First of all, this court has absolutely no idea of who Dr. Ramlogan is [other than the fact that

he was named as the advocate attorney at law in these proceedings but has never appeared

before this court at all] or his expertise to generate the model referred to in the Management

Programme and upon which reliance seems to have been placed and for which no recognised

scientific basis has been established . No resume was provided for him nor was any expertise

in this area of very great sensitivity and national and international importance established. In

those circumstances, how is this court to reach to a conclusion that the models upon which the

system seems to have been based was a reasonable approach to have been adopted and that

proper consideration was given to all of the factors in the right balance and with the

appropriate weights to enable a fully informed decision? The court does not accept the

evidence of the claimant’s witness Terence Beddoe in this regard since Mr. Beddoe's evidence

in relation to Dr. Ramlogan's expertise is clearly hearsay and no reason was given for

Dr. Ramlogan failing to file an affidavit to clarify his terms of reference.

of 28

The lack of evidence from Dr. Ramlogan:

56.1. It is more than just passing strange that Dr. Ramlogan failed to file an affidavit in

these proceedings to clarify this most salient issue. The court notes that he was a

named participant in the claim before the court as advocate attorney yet he never

attended and neither side saw it necessary to have him summoned before this court.

56.2. Dr. Ramlogan seemed to have been a major player in the formulation of the WPR and

his apparent decision to become involved in this campaign to set aside the fixed fee

structure, which was clearly one of the possible outcomes envisaged by the six models

he propounded even if it was not the preferred outcome, suggests a dissatisfaction

with the eventual decision made by the defendant.

56.3. He did not seek to reduce the ambit of his involvement in the formulation of the

WPMP, if any, in writing by way of affidavit.

56.4. If this suggestion of dissatisfaction holds true, this would in fact be a troubling

precedent where a participant in a policymaking or decision making process can

possibly undermine the whole process by questioning it through a third-party and

starve the proceedings of information which that participant himself was best placed

to provide. To my mind, this could very well subvert the course of justice.

56.5. In these proceedings, however, there was nothing suggesting that the defendant could

not have properly retained the appropriate records to substantiate its basis for the

decision. On the contrary, the failure to so produce those records without explanation

suggests to this court that such information was not treated as being sufficiently

important to have warranted it being kept safely and securely.

57. The court appreciates the fact that the WPMP was developed twelve years ago so that it may

be that the sense of importance of keeping the research data was overlooked in some manner

but it is important to bear in mind that the issue of delay was not pursued by the defendant

and, in any event, no proper explanation for the failure to provide the information was

presented to this court other than the assertion that the timeframe was too short to allow more

detailed and extensive research in the area.

of 28

The Court’s findings:

58. As mentioned above, the Water Pollution (Fees) Regulations, 2001 was dated 9 July 2001,

prior to the WPMP dated February 2005. Dr. Reeza Mohammed, who deposed to an

uncontroverted affidavit which was filed in these proceedings on 30 September 2009,

described himself as the Minister of the Environment from 22 October 1999 to 10 December

2000. He said that, as Minister, he was:

“...responsible for the policy and legislative frameworks relative to the Environment and by extension

Environmental Management Act (the Act) and subsidiary legislation made thereunder.”12

59. He said in his affidavit that, as Minister of the Environment, he gave directions for a policy to

one Dr. McIntosh, who was the Chief Executive Officer of the Environmental Management

Agency (EMA), that, having regard to the state of economic development and the level of

institutional development of the country,the most appropriate model for the subsidiary

legislation under the Act namely the Water Pollution Rules 2001, the Water Pollution

(Amendment) Rules, 2006 [Legal Notice No. 12], the Water Pollution (Fees) Regulations,

and the Water Pollution (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations, 2006 [Legal Notice No. 333]

would be the model that was user-friendly and the simplest to administer. It has to be noted

that the state of economic development and the level of institutional development of the

country were never raised by the claimant as issues to be considered in these proceedings so

that the court does not intend to investigate those considerations as issues in this matter.

60. Dr. McIntosh did not depose to an affidavit in these proceedings. Instead, Glenn Goddard,

who deposed to an affidavit on 30 September 2009 in these proceedings, refers to information

given to and received from Dr. McIntosh which was not objected to by the claimant's attorney

at law and upon which he was not cross-examined. That information in relation to

Dr. McIntosh was, in essence, consonant with the evidence of Dr. Mohammed in relation to

the stated policy.

61. There is no evidence of there being any data whatsoever to have informed that policy in July

2001. The WPMP was not done until 2005 by which time the Water Pollution (Fees)

Regulations, 2001 was already in place. The NEP was revised in 2005. There is no suggestion

12

See paragraph 4 of his affidavit

of 28

by anyone post-February 2005, when the WPMP was issued, that the defendant did or did not

consider the NEP or the WPMP finding and recommendation at page 34 thereof that:

“.... it is the Authority’s expert opinion that Model 6 (i.e. the pollution load approach) is perhaps the

most equitable and will be used as the basis for determining water pollution fees."

62. In the years 2005 and 2006, the decision-maker was the Honourable Penelope Beckles. The

court can take judicial notice of the fact that the initial policy referred to by Dr. Mohammed

was a policy instituted by a United National Congress (UNC) Minister of Government

whereas the decision-maker after the delivery of the WPMP was a Minister of Government of

the People's National Movement (PNM). In such circumstances, this court would have

expected a statement from the relevant minister who would have been in charge after the

WPMP was delivered to have deposed to an affidavit confirming the continuation of the

policy espoused by Dr. Mohammed and a further confirmation of the consideration of the

findings of the WPMP and of the principles espoused in the NEP. Regrettably, the court did

not receive the assistance save that in the corespondence from the Honourable Peneleope

Beckles, dated November 21 2008 annexed as “GA9” in the affidavit of Gary Aboud, she

mentions that the polluter pays principle was one of the key principles of the nation’s pollution

control policy as stated in the 1998 NEP and its 2006 revision.

63. Obviously, had that evidence of consideration of the WPMP prior to the 2006 amendment

been forthcoming, the claimant would have been hard-pressed to have questioned the exercise

of the Honourable Minister’s discretion. As it stands, however, there's nothing to suggest that

the findings of the research and the recommendation referred to in the WPMP was considered

by the Honourable Minister at the time and at any time prior to the 2006 amendments. To my

mind, in the circumstances, the full extent and purport and purpose of the "research" which

comprises the WPMP seems to have been lost in the decision making process.

64. I have chosen to refer to the WPMP research in quotation marks because no one has been able

to verify the scholarship or academic acceptance of the research despite the opportunity given

by this court to do so as mentioned above. It is incomprehensible to this court at this time that,

given the deep importance of this subordinate legislation and the tremendous environmental

impact that permitted pollution would have on the environment, that a more complete account

of the developmental blocks for the fee structure and its rationale was not possible. According

to Mr. Goddard, the WPMP is “... a living document. The mechanism for achieving its overall

of 28

objectives will be revisited and revised from time to time."13

It is difficult to understand how

any revisitation would be possible without a record of the basis for the formulation of the

original mechanism. In any event, it may very well be that the time has come for the

objectives and mechanism for achieving them to be revisited and revised.

65. This court has serious doubts as to how it is possible for the WPMP to be “self-sufficient and

sustainable”14

and for the current permit fee structure to be able “to recover the cost of

operating the program from those who discharge pollutants into the country's water

resources.”15

The basis of those statements, in so far as they apply to the current permit fee

structure, were not forthcoming before this court.

66. It seems rather doubtful that a polluter which has a complex potential for pollution should

really be charged the same fee as an entity whose effluent is more easily distinguished and

determined. For example, a poultry farm emitting waste product into a water system may

possibly require less scientific chemical analysis than a company emitting complex chemical

substances. Who pays for that differentiation in the scientific analysis and research process for

the determination of the terms and conditions which may accompany a permit? The court

bears in mind that the terms and conditions form a part of the permit which, necessarily,

would have been determined as a result of an application made and which application would

have to be assessed and the potential of harmful effluent identified and analyzed before terms

and conditions could be stipulated. After identification, it is probable that substantial research

into ways and means and methods of ameliorating the effects of the harmful effluent along

with the identification of the appropriate equipment and technology would be necessary in

order to determine the terms and conditions. Who pays for that? Is that a part of the permit fee

structure? There was no information given in that respect.

67. Is the process self-sufficient and sustainable? What are the costs of operating the program and

have those costs been met through the permit fee structure which operates at present? How

was the permit fee of $10,000 arrived at?

68. To my mind, to examine the rationality of the decision, the identification and presentation to

this court of information which was at hand at the time that the initial decision was made in

2001 would have been necessary - information which would have assisted in informing this

court that the whole process was in fact self-sufficient and sustainable and that all the

13

See paragraph 9 of his affidavit. 14

See paragraph 10 of Mr. Goddard's affidavit 15

Ibid

of 28

information which should have been considered was considered and information which should

nt have been considered was not. The same applies to the 2006 deliberation. Respectfully, to

limit the policy to one that was user-friendly and the simplest to administer without regard to

the exigencies and other factors which proper research and reporting would have identified,

and without regard to a programme – the WPMP - which purported to do in-depth research

into the appropriate fee structure and in respect of which there is no evidence of it having been

considered in relation to the permit fee structure, would not, in the respectful opinion of this

court, be a rational exercise of the Honourable Minister’s discretion.

69. Bearing in mind the rules which this court is constrained to follow in relation to matters of

judicial review and the principle of ministerial decision-making, this court is not satisfied that

the methodology used to determine the permit fee structure can stand up to review by this

court. The employment of the existing permit fee structure seems rather arbitrary and

irrational as this court did not receive information as to how that fee was determined or how it

meets the requirement of the PPP especially in light of the dubious status of the WPMP

research and the lack of evidence to suggest that it was even considered .

The Order:

70. As a result, the court shall make the following orders and give the following declarations:

70.1. The court declares that the methodology of employing a flat fee or fixed fee structure

and/or system which said methodology was used by the defendent for the calculation

of annual permit fees under the Water Pollution (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations,

2006 is illegal and/or ultra vires and/or contrary to the NEP and/or the Act and /or the

policy of the Ministry responsible for the environment and/or the policy of the

Authority and/or customary international law and treaties to which Trinidad and

Tobago is a signatory.

70.2. An order of certiorari is hereby quashing the decision of the defendant to use and

employ a fixed or flat fee methodology, which said methodology was used by the

Defendant to determine the annual permit fees.

70.3. An order of mandamus is hereby granted compelling the defendant to properly use,

consider and apply the polluter pays principle in calculating and/or determining and/or

fixing the annual permit fee.

of 28

70.4. The court declares that the Water Pollution (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations, 2006

not be implemented and/or enforced by the Authority unless the defendant has

adequately and properly considered and applied the polluter pays prinicple in

calculating and/or determining and/or fixing the annual permit fees.

70.5. The court further declares that the Water Pollution (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations,

2006 is illegal and/or ultra vires and/or contrary to the NEP and/or the Act and/or the

policy of the defendant and/or the policy of the Authority and/or customary

international law and treaties to which Trinidad and Tobago is a signatory.

70.6. The defendant shall pay the claimant’s costs of the claim to be assessed pursuant to

part 67.12 of the CPR. The claimant to file and serve a statement of costs by

5 November, 2012. Defendant to file and serve notice of objections by the

26 November, 2012. The assessment of costs is fixed for the 16 January, 2013 at

9:30 a.m. in POS 16.

70.7. Stay of Execution granted to the 7 November, 2012, such stay to continue in the event

of an appeal.

Devindra Rampersad

Judge

Assisted by: Krystal Richardson

Attorney-at-Law

Judicial Research Assistant

the republic of trinidad and tobago in the high...

Documents